Recipe: Pardon Me Mac and Cheese

Editor's Note: I will blog sporadically or not at all until Tuesday, July 7 due to OCON and the upcoming holiday. I will probably continue to post daily on X, however.

***

Shortly after my son got me to work out a new gumbo recipe (which he indirectly named with his review of my first stab), he got interested in coming up with a family mac-and-cheese recipe.

Viewing this as a side dish, I dragged my feet a little, but then two things happened. First, my son developed an interest in cooking, including wanting to help develop the recipe. Second, my wife got an elaborate recipe for "Jailbird Mac and Cheese" (which is actually a casserole) from one of my sisters-in-law.

Boy! That's a lot of work for a side dish. was my first thought at looking over that recipe, but I decided to make it with my son, since he was interested.

I learned how to make a cheese sauce on the way to helping my son learn a few things about cooking. Also, that name inspired my name for the final result, in mocking tribute to our times. The final recipe fairly closely follows this Chick-fil-A mac-and-cheese knockoff, which I decided to try on our third adventure with mac-and-cheese.

It's still lots of trouble for a side, but this makes enough to freeze multiple servings, balancing things out in the end.

It's not a perfect knockoff, but it's quite good, and having a frozen side dish that everyone likes on hand comes in handy.

***

Pardon Me Mac and Cheese

Preparation Time is 1 hour.

Ingredients

elbow macaroni, 1 lb. (3 cups)
butter, 1/4 cup flour
1/4 cup
salt, 1 tsp
paprika, 1/4 tsp
milk, 2 cups egg
American cheese, 8 slices
shredded sharp cheddar, 16 oz.
shredded Italian blend cheese, 8 oz.
cooking spray

Directions

1. In parallel with next steps: set water for pasta to boil, add pasta, cook for 20 minutes, drain, and set aside.

2. Mise en place: a 9x13 inch baking dish; a colander; the butter in the pot for the cheese sauce; the flour, salt, and paprika in a bowl; a whisk; a stirring spoon; the milk; the cheeses; the egg; and a small bowl for the egg yolk.

3. Melt the butter at medium heat and whisk in the flour/salt/paprika.

4. Whisk in the milk a little at a time, then continue whisking for a minute or so until it has thickened.

5. Whisk together the egg yolk and a spoonful of the hot milk mixture in the small bowl.

6. Whisk egg yolk mixture into milk mixture.

7. Reduce heat to low.

8. Add to milk mixture: the American cheese (torn into pieces), and one cup each of the cheddar and Italian blend.

9. Stir cheese mixture to melt and combine the cheeses.

10. Add noodles to cheese sauce and combine.

11. Spray baking dish.

12. Place mixture into baking dish.

13. Top mixture with remaining cheddar.

14. Broil under constant observation until cheese just starts to brown.

Notes

1. Overcooking the pasta keeps it from sucking the moisture out of the other ingredients

2. The yield is 16 servings.

3. Freezes/reheats very well.

4. Do not take your eyes off this when it's under the broiler. Once it begins to brown, it can very quickly burn.

-- CAV

Altruism vs. Goodwill: A Prime Example

A Dear Prudence reader who needs to unplug from current events every few weeks asks (search "autism and ADHD") what to do about people who "accuse me of not caring about what's happening outside my house's four walls" for taking a break from Things.

The question and the answer remind me of an acquaintance from my pre-Objectivist college days who seemed compelled to help people to the point it was negatively affecting his grades and other aspects of his life. You can't help them if you don't even take care of yourself, I observed. (Ayn Rand soon helped me get to what I was missing: That nobody has an unchosen obligation to help anyone.)

Prudence's answer is a little bit like mine then, as it also implicitly assumes altruism:

I appreciate that these people care about the awful things unfolding around us, and I understand that it can be frustrating to hear someone say they're simply not engaging. But don't they realize that if you're ultimately going to be able to tune into current events in a permanent way (and more important, do something to help make the changes you'd like to see) you have to be mentally stable and not in the middle of a family crisis to do so? You know the way you unplug and walk away from the news because it's draining your energy in a way you can't afford? Do the same thing -- but maybe permanently -- to those who are disregarding your wellbeing to shame you for what you're doing to survive. I would be very leery of anyone who saw me struggling with multiple diagnoses, caring for two generations of people, and decided to attack me instead of helping me. [bold added]

Despite its flaws, the answer is excellent advice, and it's too bad it doesn't question altruism since the attackers exemplify by way of a negative example a crucial distinction Rand made, but rarely gets credit for:

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. [bold added] ("Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosophy: Who Needs It)

The attackers certainly can't be accused of goodwill the way -- thoughtless at best -- they would goad the letter-writer to self-destruction! It's an extreme example, but a good one of how altruism is, in fact, the enemy of the welfare of the "others" its preachers express concern about.

-- CAV

Groundhog Day, and They Don't Even Know It

John Stossel's report on the latest attempt by central planners to "fix" contract work contains the following incredible passage:

The Democratic Socialists said they had a solution. Seattle's city council imposed a $26 delivery driver minimum wage.

What could go wrong?

Two years later, we know the answer: Gig workers make no more money, but prices went up.

Apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats added a $5 fee for consumers "to help cover the costs of these ... regulations."

Now Seattle residents complain about prices. "I ordered a $12 sandwich ... $12 grew to $32!" complains one in my new video. "I just deleted the app."

"[Work] has become slow because of the new law," an app driver complains. DoorDash says it got 1.7 million fewer Seattle orders in 2024.

This is what happens when politicians dictate wages.

...

Former Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson admits that the politicians made a mistake: "We created a problem and it's our responsibility to fix it." [bold added]

The last line is not the good news we might momentarily out of hope imagine it to be: All these fools could come up with to explain the devastation they wrought was that they'd picked the wrong number.

That passage reminds me of the following from Leonard Peikoff's lecture, "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand:"

Ayn Rand started thinking in terms of principles, she told me once, at the age of twelve. To her, it was a normal part of the process of growing up, and she never dropped the method thereafter. Nor, I believe, did she ever entirely comprehend the fact that the approach which was second nature to her was not practiced by other people. Much of the time, she was baffled by or indignant at the people she was doomed to talk to, people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry. The man was told by an Objectivist why government seizure of the steel industry was immoral and impractical, and he was impressed by the argument. His comeback was: "Okay, I see that. But what about the coal industry?" (Voice of Reason, p. 341-342)

Today, our politicians seem to be a choice of outright criminals -- or people like that man.

Forget about rightly pointing out that two people have the inalienable right to contract bewteen themselves how much one will pay the other for an agreed-upon service. These people can't even apply relatively simple priciples like supply and demand to questions such as What happens to a market when a price is set arbitrarily?

And these are the politicians who are at least willing to admit a mistake.

We are in trouble.

-- CAV

An Endangerment Finding Own-Goal?

One of the few things I hope the Trump Administration succeeds in accomplishing is in grave danger of not happening -- thanks to the incompetence of said Administration.

According to ClimateWire, contradictory briefs on energy-related cases might show up at the Supreme Court like two left feet on a dance floor:

Right-wing advocates including Steve Milloy and Myron Ebell, both of whom served on President Donald Trump's first-term transition team, said in interviews Tuesday that they were particularly concerned about a recent Department of Justice brief that appeared to contradict EPA's repeal of the so-called endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions.

In a May 21 amicus brief in Suncor v. Boulder -- an important climate case the Supreme Court will decide next term -- DOJ argued that the Clean Air Act reserves to EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The administration is joining red states and industry groups in urging the court to block local governments such as Boulder, Colorado, from suing fossil fuel producers over their contribution to climate change.

Milloy, a senior policy fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, told POLITICO'S E&E News that the arguments DOJ made to demonstrate federal preemption of state and local climate action are "the exact opposite" of what EPA argued in its February repeal of the 2009 scientific finding that underpinned most Clean Air Act climate regulation.

"They could both wind up at the Supreme Court, and the court could say, 'Justice Department, you're on both sides of this issue,'" said Milloy. [bold added]

The article notes speculation to the effect that long-timers at the DOJ might be attempting to sabotage the litigation, but whatever stock one puts in that, flawed legal argumentation is hardly the only problem.

The piece goes on to note that, additionally, some proposed rule changes by the Trump EPA are proceeding slowly-enough that they may not get past legal challenges before Trump's term expires.

-- CAV

Graham Contra AOC

I felt like a skating coach hearing someone say that it's impossible to do a triple axel. Of course it's possible. It's hard, but it's possible. -- Paul Graham on earning a billion dollars

***

In the wake of the latest populist drivel against "billionaires" by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, venture capitalist Paul Graham decimates her assertion, notably its smuggled-in premise that one must necessarily cheat others on the way to amassing a net worth of billion dollars.

The crux of Graham's argument is that startup founders like the ones he coaches and invests in do such a good job helping their customers that word-of-mouth helps their businesses grow exponentially:

A couple days later I was talking to the founder of a startup I'd funded. I began by asking, as I usually do when I meet a founder, what her growth rate was. 93% last month, she said. I pointed out that this meant her net worth was also growing at 93% a month. She was getting richer at a stupendously rapid rate. And yet she hadn't been doing anything bad. The reason her startup was growing so fast was simply that users loved what she'd built. So she could feel from her own experience how wrong that politician was. She wasn't exploiting anyone. Exactly the opposite in fact. The reason her startup was growing so fast was that she and her cofounder had been working their asses off to make their users happy, and as a result the users had been telling their friends. And that gets you exponential growth.

Graham notes further that "A couple million and 93% growth are not, in fact, radically different from a billion. They're nine and a half months apart."

Graham, of course, acknowledges that 93% growth is unusual, but after using the example and helping his readers understand the calculations, he shows that more typical growth rates can see someone who has a good idea and works hard become a billionaire in a decade -- as 30 of the people Graham has trained have done.

The essay notably goes beyond the demolition job by offering broad general advice on how to turn this trick yourself.

My only complaint is that, like most influential people, Paul Graham apparently does not see wealth creation as morally good. The idea that possessing wealth is evil is a moral idea with a stranglehold on our culture and it is that idea -- which Ayn Rand fought with her superior alternative of an egoistic morality -- that must ultimately lose its influence in our culture.

Graham's piece remains well worth the read, for it is a powerful antidote to the base ignorance that altruism excuses and encourages in our culture, such as about how it's possible for an honest person to become wealthy.

-- CAV

Four Wins

A Friday Hodgepodge

Whenever possible, I list three wins at the end of each day. Here are a few from a recent review of my planner.

***

1. The other day, I finally thought to try this method for baking sweet potatoes and, yes, it works very well!

2. Lucinda nastily refuses all attempts to groom her, so naturally, at winter coat shedding time, she developed lots of knots we needed a professional to remove.

We have a shortage of groomers locally who do cats here, and one must use a vet if knocking them out is required, but even cat groomers at vets are hard to find. (And yes, we tried gabapentin on her to absolutely no avail.)

Going back through vet listings again, I found one I'd overlooked and that turned out to have a cat groomer and hearing we require our clients to be sedated was music to my ears.

She is now, finally, knot-free and seems a little bit happier, and I have a place to deal with her in the future.

There will be no image of her here out of respect for her vanity, but let's say she looks like a head on a stick compared to her usual fluffy self.

3. I have mentioned it here, but only in passing, so I'll repeat it here in part just because it makes me smile just to say it: Arsenal are Premier League Champions!

Ever since a gritty win against Newcastle early in the season, I made it a point to see as many of their games live as I could, and my gut was right.

The circumstances of my finding out are amusing. The race was down to the last few games of the season, with Arsenal merely needing to win their remaining games or Manchester City to lose or draw a game.

City played a mid-week game, the end of which coincided with my taking the kids to the dentist for their annual checkup. My plan was always just to check the score when I knew the game would be over, but I'd forgotten to check before we left the office.

On the way home, I stopped to get gas, and the kids had gotten into an argument in the back seat by the time I got back into the car. Remembering the game, I was oblivious to events in the back seat and checked the score.

1-1.

Yes! I said.

My kids burst out laughing, because the timing made it sound like I was expressing agreement with my daughter's immediately prior Shut up!

It has been a 22-year wait, but not exactly an out-of-the-blue development.

And long may that development continue...

4. After not being sure I'd be able to attend it at all, my calendar opened up and my wife surprised me with a pass to OCON 2026!

If you already know me and plan to attend, drop me a line. If we haven't met and you'd like to meet me, follow these instructions to let me know.

Sooner is better than later as I will not be accessing that email account during the conference.

-- CAV

Evangelism vs. Cultural Activism

An Ask a Manager reader wants to shut down an employee who is annoying coworkers by constantly discussing the Keto diet. I found Alison Green's answer valuable both for helping me understand why that kind of behavior annoys me so much, and causing me to consider how I can avoid doing the same kind of thing myself in the future.

Alison replies in part:

If Casey were this obsessed with evangelizing for something unrelated to diet and health -- like, I don't know, the Dallas Cowboys or Daylight Savings -- it could still reach a point where you'd need to rein it in, but it being about diet and health gives it an extra layer of obnoxiousness and adds additional urgency for you to tell them to cut it out.

Constant Daylight Savings evangelism would be annoying too (as well as pretty weird) but at least it wouldn't involve judging other people's diets and pushing unsolicited health advice. It would be irritating and boring, but it wouldn't cross boundaries in the same way. [bold added]

This is a great distinction, and I love how the humorous -- and neutral! -- phrase Daylight Savings evangelism makes the knowledge so retrievable by being so memorable.

To make it a little bit more generalized, it's worth taking a moment to unpack why the behavior in question crosses boundaries.

For the sake of argument, assume that this diet (or kind of diet) is indeed what we should be doing. Even so, in today's context, any audience will have (1) heard the same thing asserted about countless other diets; (2) be happy enough with their current well-being to not see a need to make learning/switching a priority over other more urgent matters; (3) have legitimate doubts about the speaker's claims; (4) considered the information already and made up their own minds one way or the other; or (5) have psychological issues with the subject matter and need space and time to even become receptive to thinking about it.

I'm probably missing a few possibilities that aren't rank evasion here.

On top of all of that, our culture is saturated with the influence of Christianity -- which (1) commands its followers to do things (like win converts), (2) preaches that other-centered ethics of altruism (often, among other things, causing people to not see moral questions as personally urgent or worthy of practical consideration), and (3) emphasizes profession of faith, verbally and non-verbally. (Why this somehow doesn't get called out as virtue signaling is a good question.) This influence predisposes anyone being advised on how to live a better life to feel judged and bossed around, for starters.

Building a better culture is not as simple as immersing people in water or haranguing them (especially with the truth) non-stop. Being more discriminating about when and how to share philosophical knowledge is vital to the enterprise.

After learning the truth, respecting the minds of others is high on the list of things to get right when one wants to improve the culture by spreading it.

-- CAV